NFHS Questionairre

[Suudy]

Anyone else take this?

Interesting the few questions (that I can't get back to now):

Adopting the NCAA rule regarding fouls by A behind the PS.
Requiring blindside blocks to be open handed.
Eliminating the FBZ on shotgun snaps.
Eliminating clipping in the FBZ on direct hand-to-hand snaps.

How's everyone feel on these? For my part, I'm fine they way things are. No problems in ay of those areas where I'm at.

[CT1]

I voted *for* PS enforcement for A fouls behind the LOS. Everything else was OK by me.

There was a question about defensive "chop blocks" that was odd. I took it to mean "cut blocks" (BBW).

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Anyone else take this?
Adopting the NCAA rule regarding fouls by A behind the PS.

What is the reason for this change? It seems to unfairly penalize the defense, for simply doing their job. Example: Defense pushes the offense backwards to where the offense holds, 10 yds behind the LOS.

Currently, defense choice offers pushing the offense back 10 yards from the spot of the foul, as a consequence for fouling.

Accepting the penalty, essentially, gives the offense an unfair advantage negating the fact the defense pushed the action back to where the foul occurred. More importantly, it encourages the offense to foul, because they'll only wind up at the same spot, as they would, had they NOT elected to foul.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is the reason for this change? It seems to unfairly penalize the defense, for simply doing their job. Example: Defense pushes the offense backwards to where the offense holds, 10 yds behind the LOS.

Currently, defense choice offers pushing the offense back 10 yards from the spot of the foul, as a consequence for fouling.

Accepting the penalty, essentially, gives the offense an unfair advantage negating the fact the defense pushed the action back to where the foul occurred. More importantly, it encourages the offense to foul, because they'll only wind up at the same spot, as they would, had they NOT elected to foul.

I agree. Perhaps the NCAA chaps can enlighten us on why the ABO doesn't apply to fouls behind the PS, and why they made the change (I presume it was as NFHS is now).

[Welpe]

I imagine the primary reason is that in ajmc's case, a 20 yard foul is more punitive than is desired. That's essentially a drive killer, especially if it's not on first down. Having done games under both, I'm inclined to agree. I think going previous spot for those types of fouls is a better balance between offense and defense.

And note that there are times when 3 and 1 (NCAA's terminology for ABO) does apply behind the previous spot. Illegally kicking the ball and batting are two such examples.

[Rich]

Works both ways. Player pulled down with a facemask gets penalized for being illegally tackled.

I'd like to see previous spot enforcement for both A and B fouls of this nature.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Rich

Works both ways. Player pulled down with a facemask gets penalized for being illegally tackled.

Unless he fumbles.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is the reason for this change?

Just to be clear, this was a questionnaire about potential changes. These aren't in place yet.

Originally Posted by Rich

Works both ways. Player pulled down with a facemask gets penalized for being illegally tackled.

In all seriousness, it goes back to ajmc's point. Why should A get the benefit of yardage they lost prior to the tackle? If A is 20 yards behind the LOS, why should they get a free 20 yards before the penalty is enforced?

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd like to see previous spot enforcement for both A and B fouls of this nature.

This is the only way I would agree that an A foul behind the LOS be enforced at the PS. Why should A get an advantage, without B getting the same?

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I imagine the primary reason is that in ajmc's case, a 20 yard foul is more punitive than is desired. That's essentially a drive killer, especially if it's not on first down. Having done games under both, I'm inclined to agree. I think going previous spot for those types of fouls is a better balance between offense and defense.

Agree with this and Rich's point. Furthermore with fewer automatic first down penalties, there is significantly less chance of making a first down after committing a penalty that occurs 5-10 or more yards behind the LOS.

The argument that a defensive player that has pushed 10 yards into the backfield deserves credit for that progress if he then gets held is countered by the fact that there is no certainty that being 10 yards in the backfield would have resulted in a tackle being made.

If anything, enforcing these types of penalties from the PS eliminates doubt on throwing the flag for marginal/close calls. Under the current enforcement, personally, I'm going to look at a close/marginal play that could be holding and ask myself how much impact is the action in question has on the play. If the action is away from the play, I'll pass because the result is a 16-17 yard penalty in a situation where no significant advantage was gained. If the action occurs in a situation in which the defender had a chance to make a play, then I'll flag it. Please note, I'm referring to close/marginal situations. If the enforcement occurs from the PS, I'm still going to take all things into consideration except for the enforcement of the penalty. If I know the penalty is 10 yards from the PS, I'm not even considering the enforcement in making the decision to throw the flag.

Lastly, I think many times holding start at or near the LOS but don't become evident until the action is 2-3 or more yards in the backfield. It doesn't seem right to penalize the act that started at or near the LOS from a point farther back. If a hold occurs at the LOS and the offensive player drags the defender 6 yards upfield, we don't penalize it from that point. I realize these points don't make for the most solid arguments, but I fell like there are far more reasons to enforce from the PS than the spot of the foul.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

Agree with this and Rich's point. Furthermore with fewer automatic first down penalties, there is significantly less chance of making a first down after committing a penalty that occurs 5-10 or more yards behind the LOS.

The argument that a defensive player that has pushed 10 yards into the backfield deserves credit for that progress if he then gets held is countered by the fact that there is no certainty that being 10 yards in the backfield would have resulted in a tackle being made.

L I realize these points don't make for the most solid arguments,

I agree with your last observation. On the former points, you sound like a defense lawyer trying to explain why his client ELECTED to murder a clerk after robbing him, so he wouldn't be identified, then arguing just charging his client with the robbery would be sufficient.

It doesn't seem to make sense to make the advantage of fouling worth a lot more than the penalty for fouling may cost. Thankfully, NFHS seems to create fewer exceptions to basic principles (enforcement spots) than other levels.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Suudy

I agree. Perhaps the NCAA chaps can enlighten us on why the ABO doesn't apply to fouls behind the PS, and why they made the change (I presume it was as NFHS is now).

They followed NFL on this change by a few yrs. NFL wanted to encourage passing, & offense generally.

[Hand Signals]

Personally, I'm fine leaving things just the way they are.

[jpgc99]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If anything, enforcing these types of penalties from the PS eliminates doubt on throwing the flag for marginal/close calls. Under the current enforcement, personally, I'm going to look at a close/marginal play that could be holding and ask myself how much impact is the action in question has on the play. If the action is away from the play, I'll pass because the result is a 16-17 yard penalty in a situation where no significant advantage was gained. If the action occurs in a situation in which the defender had a chance to make a play, then I'll flag it. Please note, I'm referring to close/marginal situations. If the enforcement occurs from the PS, I'm still going to take all things into consideration except for the enforcement of the penalty. If I know the penalty is 10 yards from the PS, I'm not even considering the enforcement in making the decision to throw the flag.

Not sure how this would change depending on the enforcement. If it is marginal today, it should be marginal tomorrow and that equals no flag.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by ajmc

What is the reason for this change? It seems to unfairly penalize the defense, for simply doing their job. Example: Defense pushes the offense backwards to where the offense holds, 10 yds behind the LOS.

I would not be surprised if it is because too many schools are getting tired of having to explain to fans why a first and 10 became a first and 27 after a "10-yard" holding penalty.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by That Don Guy

I would not be surprised if it is because too many schools are getting tired of having to explain to fans why a first and 10 became a first and 27 after a "10-yard" holding penalty.

Even after they see the spot where the yardage was stepped off from?